According to Wikepedia, only 3 things we can be sure about Jesus. 1. He was a man from Nazareth. 2. He was baptized by John the Baptist. 3. He was crucified.
It was also jews that got him killed, not the romans. I would think romans could not give two hoots if jesus preached truth or what ever. Imagine if jesus existed in any time, the amount of hate people would have for him. So if he existed, i think he did, it was his fellow peoples that got him killed. I think passion of christ shows this well. If he existed, then the jews would of hated him enough to want him dead you can be sure of that. The jews practise the darkside of religion and care not for the light jesus preached.
There is always people that are enlightened on earth, thats the mistake the public make, and is kept from them.
I think whether the man existed or not, people want to believe he was a kind man, with a positive message for mankind, reading the bible will completely destroy this view. so most religious people should just not read the bible (as most dont) and just believe that there was a nice man who existed that cared about other people. leave it at that, and cut out all the wizardry and bigotry crap.
The issue wasn't truth. The issue was that the Romans were afraid of Jewish insurrection, so they went after any popular Jewish leaders and welcomed any excuse to crucify them.
You might want to read "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth" by Reza Aslan, he's a biblical scholar who wrote about what we actually know about Jesus and what is likely to be true. The Jews who made up the ruling class and controlled temple business were all handpicked by the Romans and well paid to be loyal to the empire, in other words, utterly corrupt. There is nothing about Jewish public life at the time that the Romans would not have known about. The Romans did care very much about people causing political discontent. It could very well be that Jesus was primarily a political activist, and was deified after the fact.
According to Wikipedia about those three things. That's not the same as being sure, and very far from being proven. If he existed, those things are probably true. They would be true of hundreds, if not thousands, of men of that era, depending on how strict we were about the Nazareth factor and how wide a time range we considered, given the doubts as to age, authorship and provenance of the source materials. So? What's true about Mithras?
Tell that to science people like al gore and richard dawkins, or big bang followers in science, lol. Science is full of just beliefs, that never were proven. Human evolution has not been proven, but you would never of thought that by listening to there mouth piece dawkins. Snake oil salesman are all in science field too.
The big bang theory and the Hubble law and constant was originally proposed by a Catholic priest but was dismissed by science. Even today he is not credited with the theory since there is atheist bias in science. His theory sounded like Genesis, let there by light, and was dismissed. But it turned out to be right but not given credit Who know the Hubble constant should have been called the Lemaitre constant but was not due to atheist politics.
George La-Maitre has always been credited with proposing the BB theory..... Edwin Hubble was the first to show evidence of the expansion of space/time. No bias, Atheist or otherwise at all...except in your mind.
